Colour Science & Perception
what the eye settles, and what it cannot
Concept

Null space — where it appears

The set of spectra that integrate to zero against all three matching functions, which is what one colour's metamers differ by. It is infinite-dimensional, which is why almost every colour has an enormous family of spectra behind it.

Named by 14 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A spectrum, weighted three ways, and the three numbers left over. The illuminant D65 above; below, the same spectrum multiplied by each matching function. The area under each product is one coordinate of XYZ. Everything else about the spectrum — its shape, its structure, all its remaining degrees of freedom — is discarded here.

Three numbers

A spectrum has as many degrees of freedom as anyone cares to give it. The eye reports three. Everything colour science can do, and every way it fails, follows from that one collapse.

eye · Cones Two different spectra that are the same colour. Two reflectance curves differing by 92 per cent RMS, and the two patches they produce under D65: identical to ΔE00 = 6.2e-14, which is arithmetic noise rather than a small number. Both patches are inside the sRGB gamut, so neither has been clipped into agreement.

Two spectra, one colour

Metamerism is usually described and almost never demonstrated. It does not have to be — the metameric black space is enormous, so a matching pair can be constructed to order, verified, and then made to come apart by changing the light.

eye · Cones A silicon sensor's best possible impersonation of the standard observer. The 1931 matching functions in outline, and the closest linear combination of the sensor's three sensitivities laid over them; underneath, what is left over at each wavelength. The residual is 31.7 per cent of the matching functions' own magnitude, worst at 440 nm. Colour reproduction is exact if and only if this is zero.

Luther said when it would work

There is an exact condition under which a fixed three-by-three matrix converts camera raw to XYZ correctly for every spectrum in existence. It was stated in 1927, it is a theorem rather than a guideline, and no camera ever built satisfies it.

imaging · Capture Two reflectances the camera records as identical. Constructed by projecting onto the null space of the sensor's own sensitivities, so the two raw triples agree to 0.0000 per cent. To the eye they are ΔE00 15.33 apart, which the swatches show.

The camera has its own metamers

Two surfaces a camera records as identical can be plainly different to a person, and two a person cannot tell apart can be recorded as different. Both pairs are constructed rather than found, from one projection, used for both.

imaging · Capture What separates the separations, and under which light. 11 separations of a single colour, differing only in how much of it is carried by black rather than by the three chromatic inks. Under D50 they agree to ΔE00 = 0.00 — the solver was asked for that and delivered it. Under illuminant A they spread to 6.75. They are metamers of one another, and the whole family is invisible to any instrument reading a single illuminant.

The separation is not unique

A four-ink press has one more control than a colour has numbers, so most colours can be printed several ways. The alternatives agree to a hundredth of a colour difference under the light the match was made in — and they are metamers of one another, so under a tungsten lamp the same eleven separations of one colour spread by nearly seven.

applied · Delivery Grassmann's four laws, exact — and the two things that break them. For a linear observer every one of the four is exact and the residual is floating point, which is the control that makes the two failures below measurements rather than artefacts. Rods break a cone-metameric match by 23 per cent of a rod excitation at dusk; bleaching breaks it by 0.59 per cent of a cone excitation in the sun. Both are stated as fractions of a receptor's own response, so they can be put on one scale.

The laws that make colour add up

Colorimetry is an integral, and an integral assumes matching is linear. Grassmann's four laws are exact for a linear observer, to floating point — and they fail at both ends of the light range, by two different mechanisms, leaving colorimetry an operating band of three and a bit decades that no standard states.

matching · Gamut A fourth primary, swept — every setting an exact match, none of them the same. Four primaries matching three numbers leave one degree of freedom. Along the horizontal axis it is the fourth primary's share of the white's luminance; at each value the other three powers are solved exactly, so every point on this plot is a floating-point-exact match for the reference member — worst residual 1.3e-15 — and no colorimeter can tell them apart. What the population sees runs from 13.7 ΔE00 at the ninety-fifth percentile to 17.3, a factor of 1.26. The best setting is the largest share the arithmetic admits, so what stops it is not colour but the requirement that four powers stay positive.

Four primaries have a choice

Three primaries matching three numbers have one answer. Four have a family of them, every member exact to floating point for the observer they were solved for — and the members are not equally good for anybody else, so a display with a fourth primary has a setting that is robust to who is looking at it and a setting that is not.

matching · Gamut Every claim here that was computed with one model, recomputed with two. Each row is a claim one of these essays makes. The bar is how many times the two-model answer differs from the one-model answer, on a logarithmic scale. 3 of 13 have no bar at all: the first model's answer for them is exactly zero, not because it computed zero but because it has no variable for the quantity. Those are the rows where a second model did not correct an answer — it supplied one.

What a second model changed

Thirteen claims here, each computed with one model and recomputed with two. Ten of them move by half again or more. Three of them do not move at all in the ordinary sense — the first model's answer is exactly zero, not because it computed zero but because it has no variable for the quantity — and every one of those three is a join that supplied a state or a device rather than a spread.

limits · Limits An instrument, as the only thing it really is. The 3 filters a bank of that size puts across the visible range, each drawn against wavelength. Everything the instrument can report about a spectrum is 3 numbers — the integral of the light against each of these — so the set of spectra it cannot tell apart is everything orthogonal to all 3 of them, which is 78 dimensions of the 81 this site works in. Three of these is a colorimeter in spirit; the eye is three of them too.

Three numbers cannot see a line

An instrument that returns three filtered readings of a spectrum determines a three-dimensional projection of it and is exactly blind to the other seventy-eight. On daylight that costs almost nothing; on a fluorescent tube, three quarters of the lamp lies in the part no reading reaches, and adding filters recovers it slowly.

light · Light The colour is right long before the spectrum is. The colour error of the projection, against the number of readings. At twelve readings the fluorescent tube's colour is right to 0.48 ΔE00 while 66% of its spectrum is still unmeasured. That is the trap in one line: a reconstruction good enough to pass any colorimetric check will predict a match under a second illuminant that does not happen, because the part it got wrong is exactly the part a different lamp weights differently.

The colour is right first

A reconstruction of a lamp from twelve filtered readings gets its colour right to half a unit while two thirds of its spectrum is still unmeasured. That combination is not a partial success — it is the exact condition under which a spectral prediction made from the reconstruction will be confidently wrong.

light · Light What each fitted thing in these essays carries, what its data fix, and what is left. Three columns per row: how many numbers the model has, how many the stated data determine, and the difference — the dimension of the family that fits equally well. The third column is the one nobody publishes. A zero there does not mean the model is right; it means it is determined, which is a much weaker property and is compatible with being determined badly, as the camera row is.

A fit can be exact and empty

Every fitted object here reports one number, the residual on the data it was fitted to, and every one of them has two more that nobody publishes — how many of its parameters the data actually determine, and how large the family of equally good answers is. The third column is where the failures live.

limits · Limits A confusion point is about the pigments that remain. Three groups of three bars. Each group is one dichromat's confusion point; each bar is how far that point moves in chromaticity when one of the three cone pigments has its absorption peak shifted by eight nanometres. In every group the bar for the pigment that dichromat is missing has length zero — exactly zero, to machine precision, not merely small. The protanope's point does not move when the L pigment moves, the deuteranope's does not move when the M pigment moves, and the tritanope's does not move when the S pigment moves. The reason is algebraic rather than physiological: a confusion point is the direction that excites only the missing cone, which is the null space of the other two receptors' rows, and rescaling a row does not move where the other two are zero. So the point at which a protanope's confusion lines meet is not a fact about the pigment a protanope lacks, which is why the claim about it restates in nanometres of the M pigment.

A point about the pigments that remain

The chromaticity at which a protanope's confusion lines meet does not move at all when the long-wave pigment moves — not slightly, exactly not at all. It moves a great deal when the medium-wave pigment does. A dichromat's confusion point is a fact about the two receptors they have rather than about the one they lack.

eye · Cones The arguments a standard observer does not have. Seven choices inside a set of colour-matching functions, each with the shape it takes and what it is worth in ΔE₀₀ on a red pigment under a 6500 K radiator. Six are measurements: a field size, an age, a macular density, a cone optical density, three peak wavelengths and a rod contribution. The seventh is not — a change of basis is a change of curves and not a change of observer, and its entry is exactly zero because the space an experiment measures is what an observer is. Printing that zero beside the others is the clearest statement of what the other six are measurements of.

Three curves for one space

Rotate a set of colour-matching functions by an arbitrary invertible matrix, undo the rotation at the end, and the computed colour is identical to eight parts in a thousand million million. An observer is a three-dimensional subspace, not a set of curves, and the literature keeps reopening a question that is a theorem.

eye · Cones The conditions under which an observer's departure is exactly zero. A departure of the observer is the pairing of something belonging to the observer with something belonging to the stimulus, so emptying either factor empties the product. The axis is logarithmic in what is left when the condition is imposed. Six rows empty the stimulus's factor — a perfectly neutral sample is the same colour for every observer, at any age and any field size — and two empty the observer's, since a gain on each cone and a change of basis are both absorbed exactly. All eight are identities rather than small numbers. The last two are the same two conditions imposed in a published cone space rather than in the observer's own, and they are worth eight and thirteen units: the identity is about the eye, and the arithmetic everybody uses is in somebody else's coordinates.

Two observers and one metamer

An observer departure is invisible on a single sample compared with nothing. It becomes a disagreement the moment two spectra are being asked to match, because a match is an identity between three integrals and a different observer takes different integrals. Everything in this round is a statement about pairs wearing a single sample's clothes.

eye · Cones

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

MetamerismMetameric blackStandard observerCone fundamentalsSpecificationColour-matching functionsΔEIndividual variationLinear modelProjectionAssertionIdentifiability

All concepts